Zitat von Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>:
[...]
> As it is not a true "unit"-function, we at least should give it a
> unit-like type like "message -> string" so that the type-system
> make a complete annotation of type?!
OK, I had misleading thoughts here: not the method get's the message,
the object gets the message.
So, the type of the function is OK.
But shouldn't the message be somewhere else notated?
Or is this thrown out in general, when using OO?
I sthere no contradiction, when using such a type annotation,
when comparing it to the non-OO stuff?
TIA,
Oliver